Channels, Fall 2016

Channels • 2016 • Volume 1 • Number 1 Page 13 Nous (mind), Ennoea (thought, intent), and Logos (reason). 80 The Gnostics tended to have a lower view of matter and described the Old Testament god as the Demiurge: a distorted god whom they distinguished from Bythos and the Savior. Some sects (including Irenaeus’ primary opponents) apparently held that matter came from Sophia’s (one of the younger Aeons) passion. 81 In Gnostic theology, Sophia’s passion is associated with several problematic outcomes and is the origin of imperfection in the world. 82 Impassibility first appears in Irenaeus’ writing as a denial of an opposing claim, similar to what we have found in the apologists. He uses it to reject the Gnostic claim that passions led Sophia astray. The first hint of this discussion comes when he mocks the Gnostic idea that matter came from the tears, smile, and terror of Sophia. 83 He ridicules this primarily by affirming creation ex nihilo but in so doing foreshadows that he will later reject passions within the pleroma. Irenaeus first explicitly discusses impassibility in chapters thirteen and fourteen of Against Heresies book II. After he states that the Gnostics’ described order of production within the Aeons does not actually make sense (as it does not follow the standard order of mental operations), he makes an even more serious accusation: the Gnostics have ascribed the attributes of men to a God that is above all of these things. He states, “By their manner of speaking, they ascribe those things which apply to men to the Father of all, whom they also declare to be unknown to all; . . . they endow Him with human affections and passions. But if they had known the Scriptures, and been taught by the truth, they would have known, beyond doubt, that God is not as men are; and that His thoughts are not like the thoughts of men. For the Father of all is at a vast distance from those affections and passions which operate among men. He is a simple, uncompounded Being, without diverse members, and altogether like, and equal to Himself . . . And so, in all other particulars, the Father of all is in no degree similar to human weakness. He is spoken of in these terms according to the love [we bear Him]; but in point of greatness, our thoughts regarding Him transcend these expressions.” 84 In this long passage, we see two important features in Irenaeus’ understanding of God that inform his attacks on the Gnostics. First, Irenaeus rejects that the divine nature can suffer imperfection as doctrines of the Gnostics suggest. The proponents of this position would disagree as they felt that their gradation of being actually protected God from imperfection. Irenaeus argues that if they are all of the same divine nature, these imperfections are inevitably attributed to God. 85 Second, Irenaeus explicitly argues that the Gnostics have 80 Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2,13,1-2. 81 Chiaparinni, “Irenaeus and the Gnostic Valentinus,” 106. 82 Mozley, The Impassibility of God, 16-17. 83 Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2,10, 3. 84 Ireneaus, Against Heresies, 2,13,3-4. 85 Mozley, The Impassibility of God, 17-18.